Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the organizers, the volunteers, the performers, the sponsors and the generous donors from all over Quebec who together made the Opération Enfant Soleil telethon a success.

This organization raised nearly $7 million just to help give sick children in Quebec better care.

Trying an original approach in order to raise money from the people of the riding of Berthier—Montcalm, and more specifically, the city of Berthierville and its environs, I agreed to remove my mustache for donations totalling a minimum of $2,500.

Well, it was with the tidy little sum of $12,000 for the Opération Enfant Soleil that the contributors from home decided to change my appearance. I will do as promised tomorrow morning.

In conclusion, on behalf of the children of Quebec, I thank them for their generosity and, Mr. Speaker, I will see you Monday morning, minus a few hairs, but for a good cause.

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois want to see Quebec separate, and the Reform Party will not be able to form the government unless it does. So they represent two sides of the same dubious coin.

In 1991, when the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party were still in the shadows, they were talking about being allies for practical reasons. One Reform member voiced her opinion that the separation of Quebec would happen sooner than people think.

Lucien Bouchard said “I do not view the Reform Party as an adversary”. He also said “Long live Reform”, adding that at least with them, the position was clear.

Both parties specialize in stirring up passions and fomenting dissension. That is the truth. The Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party are pursuing the same objective, and it is one we must speak out against.

The Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois are going through a profound crisis, and this is just the beginning, according to what 65% of Quebeckers are telling us.

Mr. Speaker, data just released by Statistics Canada indicate that family violence is an escalating social problem, but the most disturbing aspect of this social affliction that has not been made public until now is that children under the age of two are most likely to be murdered.

Data compiled through 154 police departments, largely in Ontario and Quebec, show that one in every five family murders was a child killed by a parent. Sixty per cent of sexual assaults were against children and one-third was at the hands of family members. This report echoes the findings of the National Council of Welfare called “Poverty Profile” which reports that child poverty is at a 17 year high of 21%.

While these two reports have not been related formally there are issues here that beg to be addressed when we consider future policy directions in our deficit free economy.

Mr. Speaker, the minister of fisheries is operating in slow motion on the B.C. coast to the detriment of all parties. Announcements of the regulations for the sports fishery were bungled so badly in 1996 that it unnecessarily cost the British Columbia economy $170 million.

There is every opportunity for sports fishing on the B.C. coast this year, yet once again the minister is very late and is still muddying the waters.

Fishing resorts, charter operations and communities are very concerned. The commercial fishery cannot plan because the minister is sitting on everything. His office has confirmed rumours of a $200 million buy back, only to make no announcement. He still has not produced the 1998 fishing plan. Many transition programs for fishermen are still up in the air.

The hold ups are political. This is unfair to the people concerned and is costing B.C. tourism investment and jobs.

Mr. Speaker, this year, the 26th International Exhibition of Inventions was held in Geneva.

Its more than 100,000 visitors came from all over the world. Some 650 participants representing 44 countries attended the event, and seven Quebec firms won prizes.

A Gatineau company, TEB-MAR, was awarded the Geneva state prize, as well as a gold medal. JARDIBAC of Nicolet was awarded the industrial design award. Three more gold medals were won by TOP SÉCUR of Saint-Grégoire, PRO DUKE of Lorraine, and T.F. Jeux of Sainte-Foy, and silver medals were brought home by André Ouellette of Glace Énergie in Magog, and Gilles Villandre of Val-Bélair.

Once again, Quebeckers have brought us honour on the international scene, and they are a source of great pride to us.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to honour a hockey team close to my heart in Saint John, the Saint John Flames. The Flames have advanced to the finals of the American Hockey League's Calder Cup against the Philadelphia Phantoms.

The people of Saint John have truly embraced AHL hockey in their city and the entire city has become Calder Cup crazy, in the process breaking franchise attendance records.

Saint John will be buzzing this weekend as the greatest little city in the east hosts games four and five.

As one of the biggest fans, I call on all parliamentarians and hockey fans across this country to join me in cheering the Saint John Flames and the people of Saint John. Go Flames, go.

Mr. Speaker, today we received all the working papers from the recent health officials meeting in Edmonton. This was the meeting where the hepatitis C victims stormed out when they were not allowed to see the federal position.

But now we know why the Prime Minister did not want the victims to see the federal position. The federal position did not provide one dime in new compensation.

Why did the Prime Minister say he was willing to look at all the options and then instruct his negotiators not to provide one more dime in new compensation?

Mr. Speaker, it is important for the Leader of the Opposition to understand the process in Alberta. Officials are meeting in order to explore a whole range of options.

The documents the member is referring to were referred to in the newspapers on the weekend. I see that four days later the Reform Party is getting around to reading them. All the options are being carefully and methodically examined by officials so that when ministers are given the results of that work we will be in a position to make a decision. That is the way we think work is properly done.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's negotiators had two proposals, a do nothing proposal and a do next to nothing proposal.

All the Prime Minister was willing to do was set up a few additional hospital beds so that the victims would have somewhere to die; not a word about additional compensation. But of course there was a warning about bad press that might come from that decision.

Why does the Prime Minister not just admit he is stubbornly refusing to allow his negotiators to offer one more dime in additional compensation?

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition wants to ignore the process going on here.

We have people looking carefully at all the options. Why will he not let that work go on?

On one hand he says he wants to have compensation for all hepatitis C victims and on the other, when governments responsibly and methodically look at the options with their officials, he takes some documents out of context and criticizes us for not coming to a conclusion before the work is done. He ought to wait.

Mr. Speaker, we prefer to hear from the Prime Minister rather than from the government's lawyer.

One of the federal government's options put forward by its negotiators was labelled the status quo option. I assume that is the Prime Minister's favourite option since he favours the status quo on everything. But in listing the pros and cons of this option the federal officials under the cons say it does not meet recommendations set out by Krever.

Will the Prime Minister finally admit that his preferred position on hepatitis C does not meet the recommendations of Justice Krever in his report?

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people I would rather hear from but I will answer the question put by the Leader of the Opposition.

It does no one any good for this member to take documents out of context, bits and pieces of paper that officials are working on, and try to make some point in the House of Commons. I would rather see the work done properly.

That is why we have asked officials from provincial and federal governments to sit together, work on the details and look at the options. When we have that information we will then make a decision. That is the responsible way of approaching this.

Mr. Speaker, these important documents pull the mask of compassion from the Prime Minister's face. We now have written proof that his empty words of compassion were just a cover for a policy of no compensation.

Why did the Prime Minister tell us that he would listen to all the options when he was secretly, behind the scenes, telling his bureaucrats to scuttle any deal for compensation?

Mr. Speaker, the documents to which the member is referring were referred to in newspaper reports on the weekend. It was really breaking news for the member, I suppose.

The reality is that all the options are being examined. No decision has been made. A decision will not be made on the new national consensus until we have all the information, which is exactly what the officials are doing.

Mr. Speaker, some of these individuals came to the meeting ready to come up with some money. Some of them came there saying they were uncertain if they could afford that. But at least they came with an open mind to listen to all the proposals.

The Prime Minister's officials came there with one thing in mind: no compensation for the victims.

Why did the Prime Minister say one thing in public and then send his bureaucrats with another thing? Why has be betrayed these victims again?

Mr. Speaker, we have said the same thing wherever we have gone, that we want officials to look at all the options so that governments will be in a position to make a decision.

Listening to the member for Macleod taking bits of documents out of context, I think it is important for him to remember the welfare of the people we are trying to help in this case. I think it is important for him to remember he is a medical doctor as well as a spin doctor.

Mr. Speaker, there were extensive discussions with the airlines. We made what I think was a fair decision, not only for Toronto and Vancouver, but also for Montreal.

The notion that somehow we are favouring Canadian Airlines over Air Canada is not borne out by the facts. What we are trying to do is strike a balance so that Canadian's restructuring plan can go forward, which is in the best interests of its employees and all Canadians, also giving Air Canada better flexibility with more routes.

Mr. Speaker, of course the president of Air Canada would express some reservation. He is a businessman and likes to get everything he wants. However, we in government have to take a balanced view. We have to decide what is in the best interests of all Canadians, and that is what we have done.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Minister of Transport that one Liberal government was the cause of the mess at Mirabel and that another is hindering the development of Air Canada.

My question is for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister admit that his political decisions are not only promoting the development of Canadian but also slowing the growth of Air Canada by denying it such vital direct routes as Montreal-Milan just so as not to threaten the Toronto-Rome route held by Canadian?

Mr. Speaker, we gave Air Canada the Toronto-Hong Kong route, and that is in the best interests of Montreal residents, because they can take advantage of the service. We also gave five code sharing preferences, which is good for Air Canada.

We have given five code sharing preferences for Air Canada and five for Canadian Airlines. We have said that we would review it in a year. We have said that Taiwan will probably be given within the year. What more does Air Canada want?